• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police beat war veterans in assault on Occupy Boston

Back of the bus, dirty smelly protesters. (I know I'm overexagerating)
 
DiAnna said:
Do you honestly think that people have the right to pitch a tent anywhere in America, and exercise their right of free speech? Anywhere? How about the middle of an intersection? On a freeway overpass? How about blocking access to public buildings, like city halls, libraries, schools? Is it okay to block access to a hospital to protest nurse's salaries? Block fire vehicles inside fire stations to protest a new fire tax?

Is it okay for them to pitch tents in your front yard, block access to your house and protest you?

Sorry but your statement is ridiculous on its face. There always have been and always will be limits to how, where, and what can be exercised as free speech.
Click to expand...

Hey, mayne that's the secret trick.

The protesters will provoke as many confrontations as possible that their opponents will use reasonable restrictions on free speech to justify.

And then hit them with the concept of limitations on free speech in the form of investment of money in politics as being in the public interest like protecting our sod is now.
 
theplaydrive said:
I think that's an important point. From what I've seen of the negative responses to you, justabubba and others' comments, the common sentiment seems to be "it's the law, just follow it" which rests on the implication that the law is just and reasonable. However, what none of these responses take into account is the spirit of the law and purposes that they serve. What many government officials advertise as laws made for "safety concerns" are simply laws made so that protests don't attract attention, get noticed and have a real impact.

"It's the law" has never been and never will be a sufficient response to criticisms of the laws themselves.
Click to expand...

It's common respect and courtesy to stay off the newly placed sod. Laws be damned. Have some respect.
 
Lokiate said:
I'll by that for a dollar, but I don't think a 74 year old man is much of a threat to cops. Not the kind of threat that warrants knocking the guy on his ass.
Click to expand...

So..... if someone is of a certain age they are allowed to take certain aggressive actions?
 
sangha said:
Rightwing authoritarian types just dont get non-violent civil disobedience. They think the "disobedience" part of it means "obey every law" :lol:
Click to expand...

Enough of your bull**** generalizations. My generation invented "civil disobedience." I personally marched to protest the VietNam war and to support Civil Rights. And I knew, as did we all, that when we broke the law with our protests, we'd be subject to arrest.

Nothing has changed. You want to protest illegally? You're subject to arrest. Whining about it, like these wussies are doing, is for babies. Back in the day, being arrested was like a badge of courage for our convictions.
 
megaprogman said:
Declaring specific areas off limits and relegating demonstrations to places that are unseen and outside common areas are a useful way to minimize the impact of a demonstration, creating marginalization and thus diminishing the rights to assembly. We need to be very careful about being denied our constitution rights through these types of regulations. So I don't have a bone to pick with people who do not want to be denied their speech for legitimate grievences.

There is a good reason people have issues with things such as free speech zones and what not. Unless there is an impact on public safety (which is not the same thing as creating an inconvienence for people), these things should not be regulated away from the citizenry.
Click to expand...

Sure.. no problem...

Just cordon them off and demand a tax from each of them to pay for the repair costs to the new sod.

Otherwise.... arrest them for damage to property... and yes, landscaping can be considered property.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Looks like a law was made that stops a persons right to peacably assemble.

Thats like saying you have the right to drink water. But, only 1 cup a day.

Or you have a right to stay up as long as you want but, im giving you a sedative at 10.

Or you can take a dump.... But im going to install this colostomy bag.
Click to expand...

How about I go "peacefully" key your car.
 
conservativeguy said:
candidly, I can not offer an opinion on those decisions since I do not know about the fiscal condition of your county. If these councilmen have truly screwed up, they will be easily replaced in the next elect cycle.
Click to expand...
There is already a movement trying to recall two of the members - both Tea Party.

I do know the fiscal condition of my county and they decided to provide infrastructure changes to benefit a new WalMart, two new shopping areas and development in a disputed area adjacent to the Great Smokey Mountain national park. In order to have the money for the above, they closed two schools and cut the budgets at others and laid off LEOs and firefighters and reduced the LEO and fire fighters' benefits. Care to guess who those rich developers unabashedly supported in the elections?
 
DiAnna said:
Do you honestly think that people have the right to pitch a tent anywhere in America, and exercise their right of free speech? Anywhere? How about the middle of an intersection? On a freeway overpass? How about blocking access to public buildings, like city halls, libraries, schools? Is it okay to block access to a hospital to protest nurse's salaries? Block fire vehicles inside fire stations to protest a new fire tax?

Is it okay for them to pitch tents in your front yard, block access to your house and protest you?

Sorry but your statement is ridiculous on its face. There always have been and always will be limits to how, where, and what can be exercised as free speech.
Click to expand...

There could be limits, but if there are no limits on the limits, then there should be no limits. Understand?
 
theplaydrive said:
I think that's an important point. From what I've seen of the negative responses to you, justabubba and others' comments, the common sentiment seems to be "it's the law, just follow it" which rests on the implication that the law is just and reasonable. However, what none of these responses take into account is the spirit of the law and purposes that they serve. What many government officials advertise as laws made for "safety concerns" are simply laws made so that protests don't attract attention, get noticed and have a real impact.

"It's the law" has never been and never will be a sufficient response to criticisms of the laws themselves.
Click to expand...

Cool....

So you support a cordon of all the protestors standing on the new sod and demanding they pay a tax or go to jail for damage to property then?
 
DiAnna said:
Back in the day, being arrested was like a badge of courage for our convictions.
Click to expand...

So why isn't it anymore? Apparently now, if you get arrested, it means your convictions are invalid.* What changed?

*= Not saying you made this point, just that it has been made. It has even been made several times in this thread.
 
1Perry said:
It's common respect and courtesy to stay off the newly placed sod. Laws be damned. Have some respect.
Click to expand...

So now the dirty hippies cant peacably assemble because the moon is scary and the grass is green.
 
Is it only me or do others find it hysterical some of posters are implying Boston isn't open to lunatic leftwing causes?
 
Caine said:
Cool....

So you support a cordon of all the protestors standing on the new sod and demanding they pay a tax or go to jail for damage to property then?
Click to expand...
I neither support nor condemn them. As I said, Ikari's point was important and valid response to the "it's the law" criticisms. :shrug:
 
theplaydrive said:
I neither support nor condemn them. As I said, Ikari's point was important and valid response to the "it's the law" criticisms. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Cool......

So, As my symbol of expression and protest of the use of Motor Vehicles instead if bicycles, I shall "peacefully" key your car.

Glad to know that "Its the law" can't stop my "peaceful" expression of damaging property.
 
Caine said:
Cool......

So, As my symbol of expression and protest of the use of Motor Vehicles instead if bicycles, I shall "peacefully" key your car.

Glad to know that "Its the law" can't stop my "peaceful" expression of damaging property.
Click to expand...
"It's the law" would not be a legitimate argument against you keying my car either. :shrug:
 
theplaydrive said:
"It's the law" would not be a legitimate argument against you keying my car either. :shrug:
Click to expand...

However, property rights would be. Which I think the point of the contention is (yours and mine), and one that it seems is being blown out of proportion to make an absurd claim like "we're ok with property damage". What's being said isn't that the law in general doesn't matter, or that one has proper power to damage another's property. But rather "it's the law" in and of itself is not sufficient justification for the law itself. "Why can't I stand there?" "Cause it's the law!" is not full and proper justification to why I cannot stand there. "Why can't I stand there" "Because your act of standing there is causing significant property damage" is a better justification (assuming, of course, that it is true that standing there is causing significant property damage).

One day, perhaps we will have a debate without engaging in gross hyperbole. One day.
 
Caine said:
So..... if someone is of a certain age they are allowed to take certain aggressive actions?
Click to expand...

Police are prohibited from using excessive force. They are required to calibrate their use of force to the level of the threat. It's the law

But most people know that the police are unlikely to obey the law
 
megaprogman said:
People do not have a right to not be inconvienced, so long as they are not harmed, so that invalidates most of your argument, especially if the demonstration is in a public space such as a park or a street.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that if the police ask multiple times not to do something and you still do it, you will be inconvenienced. And just so I'm clear... (your double negative - so I'm assuming you mean "People have have the right to not be inconvenienced"), and where is that right written again?


megaprogman said:
Also, there is no evidence to show that anyone has been harmed or had their safety compromised by this demonstration.
Click to expand...
Since we only have a clip of what occurred, you don't really know that.
 
DiAnna said:
Enough of your bull**** generalizations. My generation invented "civil disobedience." I personally marched to protest the VietNam war and to support Civil Rights. And I knew, as did we all, that when we broke the law with our protests, we'd be subject to arrest.

Nothing has changed. You want to protest illegally? You're subject to arrest. Whining about it, like these wussies are doing, is for babies. Back in the day, being arrested was like a badge of courage for our convictions.
Click to expand...

That was HILARIOUS!!! "Your generation"?? Do you have a patent on all those people?

BTW, civil disobedience has been around a lot longer than you have. Civil disobedience wasn't meant to be a tool to boost your ego, and protesting the laws for which they have been arrested under is part and parcel of non-violent civil disobedience, a concept you obviously have yet to fully grasp
 
Caine said:
Sure.. no problem...

Just cordon them off and demand a tax from each of them to pay for the repair costs to the new sod.

Otherwise.... arrest them for damage to property... and yes, landscaping can be considered property.
Click to expand...

Since I have the right to no inconveniences (per mega), I am finding my income tax inconvenient .. it's inconveniencing me so I'm not going to pay it any more... wonder how the IRS feels about my rights. :lamo
 
Ockham said:
I would suggest that if the police ask multiple times not to do something and you still do it, you will be inconvenienced. And just so I'm clear... (your double negative - so I'm assuming you mean "People have have the right to not be inconvenienced"), and where is that right written again?
Click to expand...

Hmm...I took it to mean that one does not have a right against being inconvenienced.
 
Paschendale said:
So why isn't it anymore? Apparently now, if you get arrested, it means your convictions are invalid.* What changed?

*= Not saying you made this point, just that it has been made. It has even been made several times in this thread.
Click to expand...

It never was. Being arrested was never meant to boost the protesters ego and street "cred". It is a tool to draw attention to the injustice of the law, the abuse of power by the govt and the overreaction of the govt also made the states fear of the protesters power evident
 
Caine said:
Cool......

So, As my symbol of expression and protest of the use of Motor Vehicles instead if bicycles, I shall "peacefully" key your car.

Glad to know that "Its the law" can't stop my "peaceful" expression of damaging property.
Click to expand...

Go right ahead, but don't expect your civil disobedience to get any attention or support, or spread to cities throughout the nation the way OWS' have. That's because you would be rightfully seen as nothing but another authoritarian thug, while the OWS protesters are fighting for what the rest of is see as just

This is just another example of the rightwingers pretending that they don't understand what the OWS protesters are doing and why. This time, the right wants to pretend that the OWS protesters just want to destroy property. The biggest destroyers of property have HQ's on Wall St
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom